Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Optional Chaining versus _.get Lodash
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
Optional Chaining vs Lodash
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Script Preparation code:
var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
Tests:
Optional Chaining
obj == null ? undefined : obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d
Lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d")
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Optional Chaining
Lodash
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Description** The benchmark compares two approaches to access nested properties in an object: Optional Chaining (also known as nullish coalescing) and Lodash's `_.get()` function. **Optional Chaining vs. _.get Lodash** Optional Chaining is a JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020 that allows you to safely navigate objects without worrying about null or undefined references. It's denoted by the triple dot operator (`...`) followed by a chain of property accesses, like this: `obj?.a?.b?.c?.d`. Lodash's `_.get()` function is a utility function that also navigates nested properties in an object, but it uses a different syntax. The basic idea is to provide a default value if any part of the navigation fails. **Pros and Cons** Optional Chaining: Pros: * More concise and expressive way to navigate objects * Less chance of errors due to null or undefined references Cons: * Not all browsers support it yet (older versions of Chrome, Safari, etc.) * May not be as flexible as Lodash's `_.get()` function Lodash's `_.get()` function: Pros: * More widely supported by older browsers * Provides more control over the default values used in case of navigation failures Cons: * Less concise and less expressive syntax * May require more lines of code to achieve the same result as Optional Chaining **Other Considerations** Another approach that could be considered is using `in` operator or bracket notation (`obj["a"]["b"]["c"]["d"]`) to access nested properties. However, these methods are generally less concise and less expressive than Optional Chaining or Lodash's `_.get()` function. **Library: Lodash** Lodash is a popular JavaScript library that provides a wide range of utility functions for tasks like string manipulation, array processing, and object navigation. The `_.get()` function is one of its most useful tools for navigating nested properties in objects. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** Optional Chaining (nullish coalescing) is a relatively new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020. It's not yet supported by all browsers, which is why the benchmark compares it to Lodash's `_.get()` function, which has wider support.
Related benchmarks:
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash (with obj in the optional chain test)
ES6 Optional Chaining vs TS Optional Chaining result in javascript vs vs. Lodash _.get
Optional Chaining versus _.get lodash without badObj
Lodash _.has vs Optional Chaining
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?